Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: synchronous execution (no task_id, no progress overlay), what is preserved (points, overlays, routes), the post-condition of active_tal_id, and the idempotent already-absent=true outcome plus AMBIGUOUS_TAL error path.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with tier and action, then when/prerequisites/exclusions/post-conditions. Nearly every clause carries routing or behavioral value, though the user-language list and scenario IDs add bulk that a tighter phrasing could absorb.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive delete tool with no annotations, the description supplies prerequisites, side effects, preservation guarantees, error semantics, and follow-up steps. Because an output schema exists, return-value detail is not required, and nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the role and precedence of map_session_id vs ts_handle and that tal_id accepts an exact unique label, which is meaningful beyond the schema. It does not mention guidance_handle at all, leaving one of four params undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('wipe one whole Territory Alignment Layer') with scope, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_territory ('NOT for deleting one leaf territory'). An agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names when to use it (including colloquial user phrasings), explicit prerequisites (map_session_id preferred, else ts_handle, plus tal_id), and an explicit when-not ('Do NOT N× delete_territory'). Alternative tools for the follow-up (auto_build/account_build/direct_build) are named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.